When did the LULZ become a menace to society?

There was a definite culture that it was cool to be hard, cold and unempathetic to others, and that the coolest person was the one who got in first with the mockery, even if it was something serious and painful. An extension of the worst nasty behavioural norms of 13 year old boys.

I’m glad @AdrianWebb managed to get SSP instituted for difficult and sensitive topics, even if she got mocked so hard first of all for doing it.


There’s definitely a thing of unpleasant tech bros having a fragile ego very wrapped up in I Am Very Smart and Very Logical, but they’ve actually not explored or learnt about anything outside their narrow field or got much emotional or interpersonal intelligence, so anything that has nuance or lots of illogical complexities must either be broken down into very basic building blocks, or if you can’t do that, mocked.

Like the mocking of humanities people- but then it turns out in the current world falling apart and fascism rising again scenario, that people with history, political or semantics training are actually incredibly useful.


I mean, even as someone who studied humanities, it’s only been faaaaiiirly recently that I’ve been able to get past the internal self-loathing sort of niggles about how “pointless” it is cause of how much that is just a part of the societal treatment of the humanities and the arts and that in comparison to THE ALMIGHTY STEM

1 Like

This was definitely the case for me as a teenager and it’s during those formative years that most people are attracted to places like 4chan or to expressing themselves with the simplicity of memes and in-jokes in general, and that’s, y’know, not a great combination.

1 Like

It’s that thing of being so self-centred and unable to put yourself in other people’s shoes that it’s just “edgy material” in their minds rather than properly understanding that it’s brutal, horrible, painful stuff to the people it’s targeted at.

A weird one is that tech bros respect ancient history/languages (what I studied) because latin is somehow “logical”, which shows that they know nothing about latin whatsoever.

It’s as logical or illogical as any other language (and lots of modern languages have very similar grammar), and the romans also had an infuriating habit of thinking it was good writing style to leave out something if it was obvious. What is obvious to a roman is obviously different to what is obvious to a modern person, so there’s lots of extremely vague, ambiguous sentences going on.

1 Like
  • Social media is directly related to social discourse
  • Social media platforms are profit-making
  • Social media platforms use the technology behind their platforms to orient social discourse so that it produces more profitable outcomes
  • This profit is made through rent extraction. Social media platforms are predominantly rent-seekers, in that they hold vast amounts of personal data and then charge other people to use that data. Their rent-seeking behaviour is enabled and enforced by a regulatory system that allows massive monopolies and oligopolies to form with very little to no state and civil society resistance.
  • The logic of extraction is naturally and inherently extended to social media discourse. The rent-seeking behaviour of the bourgeois social media platforms allows space for rent-seeking petit-bourgeois ‘influencers’ and ‘personalities’.
  • The logic of the social media platforms’ profit-making is extractive in that it utilises the free labour of its user/workers to seek rent on the data they provide, however they do not specifically direct their user/workers to perform any specific type of labour in service to this. The logic of the petit-bourgeoisies profit-making is different, but plays a vital part in the continuing profitability of the bourgeois social media companies.
  • Their profit-making is specifically designed to exploit user/workers’ emotional labour to produce their own data set. They then seek rent on this data from other companies, who believe the petit-bourgeois influencer/personality can use the emotional labour of the user/worker set they have cultivated in order to drive ‘engagement’ in the company’s brand. For example, bringing on Darren Grimes (or Ash Sarkar, for that matter) to Good Morning Britain exploits the emotional labour of people who follow or are familiar with him online, to drive engagement in GMB’s products. (incidentally, GMB then themselves rent-seek on this engagement to seek higher prices for advertisers).
  • The logic of the profit-seeking of the petit-bourgeoisie means that they are a) rewarded for further exploiting the emotional labour of user/workers and b) punished for exploiting it less.
  • Not only is this an inexorable logic in itself, it also becomes increasingly built into the mechanics of the social media platforms, as it increases engagement in their platforms, increases the data they own and therefore increases their profitability.
  • Not only does this logic get built into social media platforms’ mechanics, it becomes in itself a discursive ‘ideal’. The productive logic of the social media petit-bourgeoisie therefore breaks out of the social media sphere altogether, and drives behaviours even when the agents of those behaviours are not motivated or disciplined by the same productive forces. See for example the way the BBC operates and how that has changed over time

That’ll do for now. Can’t believe I’m putting all this shit out for free, in this thread of all places.

Not read the article btw.


Planning to watch the Pepe documentary soon, the guy who invented him got done over so badly by the insane online right wing

Don’t mean to be condescending (because I’m guilty of it sometimes, and our politicians willfully muddy the waters). But much more accessible, up to date and well enforced online education would stop 99% of yer da’s accidentally believing a russian bot advert and/or david icke rabbit holes


Aye… mum/dad will occasionally pipe up with Silly Opinion X, and when challenged will say “read it on the internet” and, if pressed for who wrote it, the answer is “it’s just on the internet”.

(Great post btw @still_here)

had that conversation many times with auld ma ruffs
oh the internet! they dont let just anyone post on the internet

1 Like

Mark Zuckerberg is the biggest fan of Caesar Augustus since, well, Caesar Augustus, even going so far as to model his hairdo on him. Augustus is not a great role model.

Good rule of thumb: avoid anyone with a photo of a classical statue or bust for a profile pic.

Weirdo libertarians/Tory thinktankers, every one.


The sort of people who mansplain argue with Mary Beard on Twitter and turn out to have no ancient history education whatsoever.

And when they’re not doing that, they can be found in the mentions of Guido Fawkes making racist comments about Diane Abbott.

It’s a busy schedule of being an arsehole

or purveyors of vapourwave belters


The only good use of classical statuary online

1 Like

Inspect the picture for pastel backgrounds or sparkle pixel effects to distinguish between the two


Yeah so you agree with me?